Slashdot Mirror


Discouraging Students from Taking Math

Coryoth writes "Following on from a previous story about UK schools encouraging students to drop mathematics, an article in The Age accuses Australian schools of much the same. The claim is that Australian schools are actively discouraging students from taking upper level math courses to boost their academic results on school league tables. How widespread is this phenomenon? Are schools taking similar measures in the US and Canada?"

12 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. in college this would make some sense by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would make a little more sense if this was college when you have an idea what you want to do with your life and realize it doesn't make sense to take calculus to finish out an art/language major. But really, a student that is not interested in going into the sciences is unlikely to use calculus or higher mathematics much, but that doesn't mean they should drop it just to boost their GPA.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:in college this would make some sense by happyemoticon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The mistake you're making is looking at this from the perspective of the student. They're not talking about boosting the students, they're talking about boosting the school's ratings. I don't have the full story on Australian/UK educational policy, but the climate sounds like the US's "No Child Left Behind Act" policy, which diverts teaching resources away from actual teaching and focuses on teaching students to perform well on yearly standardized tests.

      The net result is overwhelmingly bad. Just as the article describes, by attempting to make your kids appear better statistically, you make them less educated in actuality.

    2. Re:in college this would make some sense by digitig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What we should NOT do is abandon the whole premise of measuring progress just because the tests could be better. Measuring is good. The issue is what you do with the measurements. If they're out of parameter then they should be investigated; there may be good reason, in which perhaps you refine the tests to take that reason into account, or there may not be, in which case you intervene. I don't know about the NCLB situation, but all too often here in the UK the measurement is tied automatically to the measurement, with nobody actually looking at why the measurement is the way it is: management is replaced with administration; it's cheaper and you can always blame somebody else. And the results are disastrous, because the measurements end up rewarding people who are good at manipulating the measurements, and penalising those who focus on the job. Anybody who looks can see it happening, but those who set the targets choose not to look, and the whole performance indicator tied to reward/punishment system doesn't have anybody whose job it is to look.
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:in college this would make some sense by happyemoticon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree. Teaching a student so that they perform well in a test and teaching a student so they will eventually perform well in college and life are very different things. I have heard reports of colleges who complain that students are increasingly ill-prepared in terms of reasoning, thinking, researching, and persuasive writing, because these things are hard to test in the standardized testing environment. From what I have heard first-hand from people in teaching credential programs, many kids in charter schools are barely being taught to write. They are being taught to take standardized tests.

      I don't mean "Teach this fact, which will be on the test, and not this other fact." I mean teaching only to parrot facts without achieving a depth of understanding. Teaching to bubble in responses rather than write a clear and convincing argument or extracting knowledge from a book unaided.

      I know there are a lot of holes in that. I don't have time to really back up my position. However, if you want empirical evidence, testing is not the only way to get it. Testing is just pretty cheap and fast. A far more effective way to get a real sense of the problems in schools would just be to send actually human beings to them to write reports, but it would be very costly and subject to variance and human eccentricity. In fact, I think that our aversion to any type of evidence that doesn't fit in a spreadsheet is part of the problem.

  2. Shhhhhh by RealityMogul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The US doesn't do that, we just hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problem: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20205125/site/newsweek /

    1. Re:Shhhhhh by jc42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, in my high school (a couple decades ago now), they went past ignoring the problem. In my sophomore year, I decided that math was interesting, so in the first month, I read through the entire textbook. Then I started borrowing books from the math teachers. By the end of the year, I'd made it through their college calculus books.

      Their response? They finally woke up to what I was up to, and let me know that they wouldn't be loaning me any more math books. I was supposed to learn it in classes, not on my own time. They were all in agreement, and I didn't get another math textbook from them.

      However, I did have some good friends at a nearby college. I borrowed math books from them. The high-school teachers didn't learn about it until the next year, when I didn't enrole in any more math classes, and explained why.

      What was especially bizarre was that when I finally graduated and went off to college, I passed all their entrance math tests and got the most "advanced placement" that they gave bright students: They let me enroll in second-year calculus. I knew the subject better than the instructor did, which didn't exactly endear me with the instructor. But "That's the rules", and there were no exceptions; I had to have that class to be allowed into more advanced classes.

      (Note that I've carefully said nothing that would identify the schools. This is intentional, so you might suspect that it might be schools in your area. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  3. What upper-level math courses? by jcorno · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In my high school (it was a Georgia public school), you had to have skipped 6th grade math to get to super-basic (no AP) calculus in high school. Otherwise, you topped out at trig. On top of that, trig was optional even for what they called "college prep" diplomas. Guess how many people were in that class. That was going on 15 years ago, though.

  4. Math in Canada by umStefa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a former mathematics teacher in Canada (Winnipeg, Manitoba if it matters) I can say that there is a worse scenario, it is not uncommon for school principals to put pressure on math teachers to give all students good grades. The logic being that since math courses are mandatory for graduation, failing a student will socially stigmatize them.

    As a specific example, I personally had 3 students who did not attempt a single assignment and all of them had attendance rates below 50%. I was told by the principle that if I wanted to be hired on next year I would need to give these students an extra assignment for 'Bonus' marks so that they would pass. I refused and hence am a former math teacher.

    --
    Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
  5. Re:Why is this a bad thing? by rantingkitten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just don't think that's the case. I took the four years of math (two of algebra, one of statistics, one of geometry). plus another in college (having deliberately chosen a major that would let me avoid as much math as possible). That's five years of math, plus the algebra class in eigth grade, which could count as a sixth year of math even though it was, obviously, not very advanced.

    To this day I have absolutely no idea what a quadratic equation is beyond a vague "something to do with parabolas". I still remember the formula thanks to a silly mneumonic, and if forced I could probably still crunch through one. But that was ten years ago, and that is all I can do today.

    Even then, being exposed to it every single day, I didn't understand it. I had no idea what it was used for, and I had no idea whatsoever how it worked. At all. And I still don't.

    To say I -- or anyone like me who is not inclined towards math -- is "learning" it is somewhat disingenuous. I learned nothing about math in high school. I did what most non-math types did, which was memorize the formulas long enough to plug the numbers in and pass the test. I had no idea what I was doing -- just steps in a dance I was forced to go through like a trained monkey.

    And today I still suck at it.

    See, the reason I don't like your analogy is because, unlike math, English (or whatever your native language may be) is something you are constantly exposed to, and you will use it every single day of your life, regardless of your profession, interests, social status, etc. And because of that, it is useful to everyone, from every walk of life, in every professional or personal communication they have with anybody. Ensuring that people are better at this is a good thing for everyone, and moreover, it doesn't take much, because everyone is exposed to it all the time.

    You cannot make the same argument for math. It is rarely used by anyone; only a small subset of people use it for their professions, and another small percentage find it of personal interest. But the majority of people never encounter math beyond arithmetic outside the classroom -- and because of that, they forget what they allegedly learned.

    Learning English may have helped you be somewhat better at it, but then, you have plenty of opportunity for practice. Learning math won't help most people, who will never find a chance to use it, and after only a year or two away from the classroom, will have forgotten most of it.

    I'm not denying that math is important -- the fact that we're talking about it using computers which require an intimate understanding of silicon semiconductor physics demonstrates that. But Joe Average didn't design the computer. But can you really, with a straight face, tell me that most people have any use for math beyond basic arithmetic?

    --
    mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
  6. Re:Even in Art, Math has its place by digitig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Math still has its place. If you want to go to graduate school in humanities, then you may still need some advanced math. In particular, many students from medicine, political science, humanities, and the arts, do advanced multi-variate statistical studies as part of their post-graduate studies. As an example, I'm doing an English language degree for fun (already having degrees in Electronics and Computing, for my career). One aspect of my (undergraduate) course is corpus linguistics, which involves multivariate statistical analysis. Another area is trend analysis in type-token ratios to identify critical points in texts. I've rather enjoyed seeing how maths applies to linguistics (and my tutors are bewildered by how quickly I can whip up a Python script to do some esoteric analysis :-)
    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  7. Re:Isn't this a good thing? by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As there's already a thread about Math/Maths, let me say that in the US METH = Methamphetamine, while in the UK METH = Methylated spirit.

  8. Re:Tinfoil by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IMHO that's just wishful thinking. How strong are Chinese students in math? I'm one, and I consider myself quite strong mathematically, though most of my Asian peers are even more insane. Of course, I am probably *the* only critical thinker out of the bunch. It's entirely possible to create a bunch of math geniuses without risking exposure to democratic ideas.

    Slightly off topic, but what I find most interesting about my Chinese peers is that they haven't been indoctrinated to worship Mao, or any such nonsense. Rather, they've been indoctrinated not to care. Most have a very mild contempt for Mao, and aren't writing rave reviews about their government, but at the same time they fail to see what the fuss is about with democracy, freedom of the press/religion, etc, having been totally trained to believe that politics simply aren't important in a proper person's life. I find it altogether much scarier than a bunch of Mao worshippers, and infinitely more depressing.